Demand from Board Members
Board members are also independently seeking more rigorous evaluations. In many cases, expectations for their own boards has risen. With directors averaging over 224 hours in service to public company boards in 2021, who wouldn’t want that time to be more productive and pleasant?
This applies both to cases where a director suspects that something that needs to be fixed on a board and when they are proactively seeking to make a good board even better. Occasionally this manifests as a concern about peers; this past year, 48% of directors think at least one fellow director should be replaced, and 19% would replace two or more. But increasingly, directors are turning the lens on themselves, proactively asking: How can I get better?
Put simply, directors want to be effective. When presented in a fair, thoughtful, and forward-looking manner, peer feedback enables them to be.
Demand from Executives
Executives are also strong advocates for robust evaluations. Effective boards provide invaluable strategic counsel and oversight to management teams, unlocking substantial organizational value. Conversely, ineffective boards can actively impede executive leadership teams, distracting them from value creation.
Outside facilitators can anonymously share information with the board about how its work is perceived by senior leadership. Such information is often incredibly compelling, bringing vague concepts about corporate governance to life, and helping boards make changes that lead to a real positive impact on the company’s performance.
How can your Board Make its Evaluations More Effective?
When it comes to board evaluations, one size does not fit all. Each process should be customized to deliver the greatest return on investment. As part of that customization process, boards should consider five key design questions:
- What (and who) are you evaluating?
- What is the focus of your evaluation?
- On what sources will you rely?
- Who will lead?
- How will you turn insight into action?
What (and who) are you evaluating?
While many annual evaluations focus solely on full board performance, ignoring committee and director performance constitutes a missed opportunity.
Investors agree. In its seven key indicators of board evaluation strength, the Council of Institutional Investors stated that “effective board evaluation processes assess performance at three levels: the board, the committees and individual directors.” Integrated evaluations that capture feedback at all three levels are most likely to determine the biggest opportunities to enhance board performance. While the subject of the evaluation may change from year to year, boards should be deliberate when scoping, balancing the pros and cons of different approaches.
What is the focus of your evaluation?
Oversimplified, board effectiveness combines winning structures, processes, and people. The best evaluations are holistic, reviewing how a board is designed, how it operates and spends its scarce time, and how it handles important and contentious discussions. Many boards use the evaluation process to refresh benchmarking data on how the board compares against peers, important reference companies, and evolving investor priorities as well, all of which can uncover gaps before they become problems.
Many existing evaluations are designed to only examine one of these key elements. For example, many law firms offer evaluation services that assess corporate governance from a very (if not purely) technical lens, often focusing on shareholder activist defense mechanisms. While accomplished in their areas of expertise, many of these advisors have difficulty assessing, remediating, and reporting on the interpersonal and cultural issues that are most likely to inhibit board effectiveness. Only holistic evaluations that examine structures, processes, and people can confidently assess whether the board is an asset in creating real shareholder and stakeholder value.
On what sources will you rely?
While analytical surveys have their place, when they are the entirety of an evaluation they are more likely to generate heat than light. Evaluations that simply point out differences in average scores won’t provide meaningful insights or actionable ways to improve, as the sample sizes simply can’t provide statistically significant data. Comparing average scores on given questions across in a multi-company database isn’t much better, and does not offer any diagnosis or – more importantly – solutions.
We believe that interviews are the essential foundation of any rigorous and effective evaluation. Candid, attributable discussions with every board member – and key members of the leadership team – provide the necessary nuance for an evaluation to generate actionable insight.
Who will lead?
Evaluations must consider both internal and external leadership. Internally, most processes are overseen by the board’s chair, lead independent director, and/or chair of the committee responsible for corporate governance. The best processes also carefully solicit and consider executive input, particularly that of the CEO.
Conducting an externally-supported evaluation at least every two or three years can be extremely valuable. Not only do external advisors bring a broader perspective informed by working across numerous boards, their outsider status allows them to provide a safe space for interviewees to share sensitive information they might not be comfortable sharing internally.
How will you turn insight into action?
Identifying opportunities is not enough. The most powerful evaluations uncover a handful of critical opportunities and a pathway to address them.
We are often called to remediate a prior “failed” evaluation. Sometimes, a company has been given a laundry list of minor suggestions without any prioritization or scale. Other times, feedback is presented poorly, corroding collegiality and injecting distrust. To address this, working with experts who focus on critical issues in a positive, future-oriented way is essential.
Any board assessment should be viewed as a part of a broader journey toward effectiveness and high performance, rather than a one-time outcome. We previously wrote about the importance of a multi-year evaluation cycle, and continue to believe that tracking board progress in subsequent years is one of the best ways to effect change. Most of our clients undergo an externally-facilitated deep dive every two or three years, focusing on defined priorities during off-years.
Conclusion
More stakeholders than ever are asking: “Is your board effective?” Too many directors and executives confide in us that they are not able to answer that question with conviction. Establishing a thoughtful board evaluation process equips you with the information necessary to be confident in your answer and helps your board on its journey to an unequivocal “yes.”
